Reform UK and Reform Canada

 

Mr. Charisma

Summer is usually slow for news. Not this summer. We have epochal elections underway in both France and the UK. In the UK, many people are pointing to the “Canadian example.” Kind of flattering to get noticed. 

They mean the election of 1993, in which Kim Campbell led the Tories from a majority, 168 seats, to just two seats in total. The suggestion is that something similar could happen to the British Tories in two weeks’ time. In both cases, supposedly, it was because of the emergence of a new party on the right, in both cases named “Reform.” 

(The original “Reform” was actually a US movement, under Ross Perot; but that perhaps takes us too far afield.)

Are the situations really similar?

Campbell in 1993 was actually facing two insurgent parties, Reform and the Bloc Quebecois, a regional separatist party. The BQ actually did better than Reform in that election, and so was a more significant factor. The BQ was formed by former Conservatives, and mostly cut into their vote. In the UK, there is a comparable regional separatist party, the Scottish Nationalists. But they naturally cut into the Labour vote, not the Conservatives. 

Based on this difference, it seems the British Tories have less to fear.

On the other hand, the leader of Canadian Reform at the time, Preston Manning, was not charismatic. Nigel Farage, the UK Reform leader, is uniquely charismatic. 

Based on this difference, it seems the British Tories have much to worry about.

On the other other hand, Canadian Reform was also fuelled by regional resentments, whih gave them a natural base generating seats in Parliament. UK Reform does not have this.

In either case, the reason for the insurgency is the same: no federal party was addressing an issue, or issues, of vital concern to the general public. People felt they were being ignored. In Canada, it was about changing the constitution; although immigration levels were already also a concern. In the UK today it is mass immigration.

More broadly, there is a natural schism in “Conservative” parties. Because the left has gone Marxist since at least the 1930s, perhaps since the “Progressive” era of the 1920s, “conservative” parties have become coalitions of everyone else, of both actual conservatives and classical liberals. 

These philosophies are not compatible. 

In the UK, conservative Conservatives are referred to as “one nation” Conservatives, or sometimes as “wets.” In Canada, they are called Red Tories. They believe in paternalistic, government, as did Disraeli or Burke. Classic liberals want a smaller government and respect for individual rights and freedoms, like Gladstone or Jefferson.

Tension between the two is inevitable. If one faction suppresses the other, you get a revolt. Yet it seems that a coalition of both has been needed to overcome the Marxists.

This may no longer be true.